Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#91

Post by mattnewton »

djohnston wrote: post #66
cute_boi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't want independent researcher to verify if you are targeting ads when you have proved from time to time Facebook is not trustworthy with our data? And the link you shared doesn't have any information how ads are targeted. Stop using Privacy as a PR stunt. I trust those researcher with my data than facebook.

I mean the last time this happened it was Cambridge Analytica, so maybe you shouldnt trust either?

Maybe, but I guess the key question is whether facebook has standing and a duty to make that decision on behalf of their users' privacy, or if it should be left up to the user. Whether or not we trust facebook is relevant to that argument. If we don't buy that this is necessary for facebook to intervene and defend user privacy, the only conclusion I can come with is that they are making this decision because of a threat to their business. And I can't see much of a difference between "we should let the users share their information with Facebook for a better experience on the platform" with "we should let users share their information with NYU to power publically available research in ad targeting"

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#92

Post by pletsch »

_Understated_ wrote: post #75
boomboomsubban wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer? While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with. Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, en…

Fair point but I would argue that NYU are only looking at the page and saying "this user viewed ad XYZ" and recording that fact. They're not (I assume) copying the advert and storing it on their servers. I could see Facebook arguing that taking a copy of it is a violation of IP somehow. But simply looking at the page and recording some of the meta data is the same as someone asking me on the phone "what advert did yo…

Looks like they store the ads in a public DB

https://adobserver.org/ad-database/

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#93

Post by bogomipz »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #78
bogomipz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they were not. Please see this post from Dr David Stillwell from the Psychometric Centers at Cambridge University who responded to a post here a few weeks ago about this very point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912986

Thanks for the link, but I'm sure you can understand my skepticism of a naked assertion that the reporting on this issue was wrong - especially since this was Mr. Stillwell's only comment ever.

Is it really that implausible that someone have have forwarded him a link to a site he has no interest in and he saw a comment he felt compelled to comment on? Since when is the number of of past comments a barometer for legitimacy? I mean Hacker News even gives you the option to post from a throwaway account.

Further the comment is simply refuting one Wired article with an earlier article Wired published on the same subject in which he participated in. It's not like some crazy idea was being posited in the comment.

Lastly Dr Stillwell has made the assertion many times that the app and data he and Dr Michal Kosinskis developed for their "MyPersonality Quiz" app at Cambridge University is neither the same app or data as Aleksandar Kogan's My Digital Life" app that Kogan developed for Global Science Research and their client SCL Elections. The "MyPersonality Quiz" app was simply based on Stillwell's earlier work.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#94

Post by _Understated_ »

fsociety wrote: post #89
_Understated_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was highly targeted advertising on targets which were highly susceptible to be turned This doesn't gel with me... how many people saw the ads, how many times, and of those, how many were actually influenced by it? Going by my sample size of two (my sister and my wife) they both claim that they never even look at ads that appear on screen. I honestly am calling bullshit on the whole ad industry here... show me ev…

It is bullshit I agree. We all know what the intent is with an advertisement. You don’t have to be a “tech-elite” to understand ads. There should be more transparency around how ads are displayed on the internet.. but giving researchers full access to a user’s data and their friend’s data is a pretty poor one. Can’t a better system be designed for this? Content, however, is very dangerous and it’s not clear what a go…

> It’s not clear what the purpose of content is on the internet

Something I have pointed out to others in the past, and on here too, is that the Internet existed just fine before all these ad-related sites appeared. Of course, nothing on the scale of FB, Google etc, but I'd argue that we're worse off now than before.

When you rely on advertising you then have to make sure that every piece of content works towards making the advertising worthwhile. You then maximise SEO, and clicks and focus on metrics and bullshit like engagement (whatever that means).

You have to calculate whether a blog post or article is worth doing because your sponsors now care about that: you stop making content for the love/joy/sake of the content and everything becomes bait for your ads.

20 years ago, the only ads were about punching a monkey and finding out that I was the 1 millionth visitor to a website and could click the ad to claim my prize :)

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#96

Post by est31 »

_Understated_ wrote: post #75
boomboomsubban wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer? While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with. Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, en…

Fair point but I would argue that NYU are only looking at the page and saying "this user viewed ad XYZ" and recording that fact. They're not (I assume) copying the advert and storing it on their servers. I could see Facebook arguing that taking a copy of it is a violation of IP somehow. But simply looking at the page and recording some of the meta data is the same as someone asking me on the phone "what advert did yo…

Samsung TVs take screenshots of displayed content and send them to their servers. They use it to track what you watch, whether it's the latest blockbuster DVD release or your private homemade porn video :). It's all sent to them.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#97

Post by rndgermandude »

KaiserPro wrote: post #10
mcny wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re missing the context of this conversation. From a comment in a previous Han post about this > The research participants are voluntarily sharing their ads with NYU. Facebook is objecting.

They also voluntarily shared it with the personality quiz, which were then obtained by CA. much as I dislike facebook on this one, I think they actually have a point.

No.

The NYU gives a clear statement on why they want this data (to track ads) and what data they collect, this is informed consent.

CA on the other hand obfuscated the purpose and what they collect as much as possible, pretending it was a personality/IQ quiz (something fun and benign) when in fact they harvested the data in order to create models for targeted advertising which they then used in political campaigns. This isn't informed consent.

That's a very different starting point already.

Your argument seems to be "well, if that doctor with the curious name of 'NYU' and working for a reputable facility asks you for informed consent to do a surgery to remove a cancerous mole, this doctor can in theory just be lying and cut off your leg!!!1!". CA in this context would be the back alley quack who pretends to provide you with a free non-invasive exam for skin cancer, but then steals your kidneys and sells them on the black market.

The NYU also tries to be as transparent as possible beyond the initial value proposition, including open sourcing the collection software (browser extension), again the opposite of what CA did.

Is there still a possibility of abuse by NYU? Sure, and that's why it is entirely fine to keep an eye on them, and keep holding them accountable, but for things they actually do or don't do.

However, I think trying to hold the NYU to an unachievable standard ("we need to audit everything they do independently") while at the same time not even remotely applying that same standard to FB, their FAANG buddies, and everybody else really, that's just... wat

Tell me again how you think there may be a vague security and privacy concern with the NYU voluntary ad data collection for the willing participants when Target starts selling your daughter pregnancy products (because they knew before her herself that she is pregnant), facebook detecting your face in other people's image shares and adding public tags with your name automatically, google telling you "you have visited this place 2 times in the last 10 years", or famous twitter users (or rather the new owners of their accounts) pushing bitcoin scams because twitter had their systems compromised.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#98

Post by antris »

fsociety wrote: post #84
antris wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot avoid targeted advertising, hell, all advertising is in one way or another targeted But there's a drastic difference in effectiveness. No one would support private ownership of nuclear weapons just because everyone has fists which are weapons also. Hyper-targeted advertising has gone off rails recently and when you can simply buy your way into any specific segment of the population without having to put…

What is the difference between targeted advertisement and targeted content? I’d argue targeted content is more dangerous because the intent of the content is not as clear as for an ad. Btw the ad library on FB allows you to put scrutiny on those ads. In fact (some) journalists love to browse it to find a shocking ad and write a news story about it.

The difference is that you can throw unlimited money to guarantee to get eye pairs. The one with the most money will get their message across best. And also the advertising is part is much easier to regulate. We already have loads of regulations and limitations about advertisement, so there would be no problem adding one more.

Unless FB is in on the scam, you cannot buy eyepairs on the platform.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#99

Post by EarthLaunch »

konjin wrote: post #79
ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

I'm curious, who is on the other side of the debate here? Because I've seen more people argue for a flat earth than a non-evil facebook.

There are several arguments to be made for a non-evil Facebook. But people are unlikely to engage with a starting comparison like that. Perhaps that's why you haven't see any opposing arguments.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#100

Post by goatinaboat »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #74
_Understated_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view o…

> I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer? While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with. Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, en…

While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property

I read something, now it is in my brain. Does Facebook still own it? I suspect they believe they do.

Post reply on HN